Friday, January 26, 2018

America's Cup: Councillors misled by Council

The big picture of an America's Cup regatta is made up of images like these. They make up what we remember of Bermuda.

Pictures like these and memories of the fun had watching and sharing and discussing tactics and innovations are enriching for many. We want more.

But what price are we prepared to pay, and can we be manipulated into giving away other things by focussing us on the possibility we might be denied hosting rights. There's no denying the public pressure that has been applied by Emirates Team NZ (ETNZ) and its lobbyists. However councillors are used to that sort of thing and can usually be relied upon to make good decisions that properly balance the various stakeholder interests. Councillors are reliant upon officers and officials to provide good information in order to make good decisions. They should not be forced into decisions that are influenced by biased or selective information.

In my opinion, the hosting option favoured by Panuku and ETNZ, and which necessitates expansions to Halsey and Hobson wharves, was an inevitable result of the information presented and decision process councillors were subject to. More about that in future.

A fundamental assumption behind the option supported by Panuku is that event related syndicate structures and infrastructure be permanent or semi-permanent. Reports made available to councillors don't adequately examine what I could call the Bermuda option, where syndicates are provided access to coastal land - remediated or not, and rights to build temporary structures on the basis those structures are removed after the event.

That option would have opened up the opportunity of using Wynyard Point and Tankfarm land. Councillors should have been provided Panuku's financial planning and assumptions for its proposal. Councillors should have been advised of the associated revenue streams for its proposals to expand wharves, build more super yacht berthing facilities, construct substantial buildings along the waterfront which will be used for much of their lives by interests who are not America's Cup syndicates. They should also have been informed about costs of relocation of fishing industry, and the implications of that relocation for longer term plans on Wynyard point.

The information presented to Councillors was highly selective. Councillors are now put in the unenviable position of making sequential decisions. This is in danger of becoming an incremental process where councillors lose control. They are not given the big picture.

A good example of that is the nature of the resource consent that is actually being sought by Panuku for its preferred option.

I've read the report that councillors had before them on the 14th December, and considered the presentation provided by Panuku. Then I read the planning report that accompanies Panuku's resource consent application. Deep within that it states that the term of the consent required for the visiting syndicate
bases is 10 years from late 2018. This is apparently to provide for these bases as temporary bases for the
AC36 event in 2021 and to ensure that they are “able to remain for AC37 should ETNZ be victorious in
their defence of the AC36 Cup challenge…”

Nowhere in the report is it explained that a 10 year consent would be sought, based on the dubious assumption that ETNZ will win two America's Cup events in a row. Councillors only voted in relation to the 2021 event. That's what is in their minuted decision. Councillors did not vote for TWO events. But this is what Panuku is applying for.

I think this is outrageous. It explains why the application is for long lasting and durable buildings. If consents are granted like this,
Auckland’s Halsey and Wynyard wharves would be occupied for ten years by huge buildings that
would – at best - be used for America’s Cup purposes for about a year. And at worst they'd only be used for six months for the 2021 event.

The application - which also provides for the relocation of the fishing industry and Sealink ferry - is an integrated one (big picture!), but councillors were selectively informed. They didn't get any detail. They didn't get any planning information about previous publicly debated decisions about how Wynyard Quarter should be developed as a people place and working waterfront, nor how those decisions would be jeopardised by the Panuku option.

Councillors are being drawn into a process over which they have little control. It's time they took control and began asking questions about what is happening behind the scenes.

1 comment:

Only once in the 160 year history of the America's Cup has the trophy been won by a first time Challenger. The exception was in 2003 when the Swiss Alinghi Challenger hired the key crew (ix of them) from Team New Zealand. Effectively the 2003 Cup was New Zealand "A" (Alinghi) vs New Zealand "B" (Emirates Team NZ). Of the entries announced to date only the British team are a second time Challenger (ie a team that competed in the previous America's Cup). Team New Zealand have contested nine America's Cups and 2021 will be their 10th and they won three times.

Comment was made during the Council Meetings considering this issue that the team bases would remain (as they did from 2000-2003).

The principal failure of the Long Term Plan is that it did not take into account the fact that Team NZ had made the Final of two America's Cups since 2003 (2007, 2013), had lost very closely contested Matches, and was likely to win the trophy back in 2017. No contingency planning was done around this probability and that is why there is planning on the fly being done currently.

Friday, January 26, 2018

America's Cup: Councillors misled by Council

The big picture of an America's Cup regatta is made up of images like these. They make up what we remember of Bermuda.

Pictures like these and memories of the fun had watching and sharing and discussing tactics and innovations are enriching for many. We want more.

But what price are we prepared to pay, and can we be manipulated into giving away other things by focussing us on the possibility we might be denied hosting rights. There's no denying the public pressure that has been applied by Emirates Team NZ (ETNZ) and its lobbyists. However councillors are used to that sort of thing and can usually be relied upon to make good decisions that properly balance the various stakeholder interests. Councillors are reliant upon officers and officials to provide good information in order to make good decisions. They should not be forced into decisions that are influenced by biased or selective information.

In my opinion, the hosting option favoured by Panuku and ETNZ, and which necessitates expansions to Halsey and Hobson wharves, was an inevitable result of the information presented and decision process councillors were subject to. More about that in future.

A fundamental assumption behind the option supported by Panuku is that event related syndicate structures and infrastructure be permanent or semi-permanent. Reports made available to councillors don't adequately examine what I could call the Bermuda option, where syndicates are provided access to coastal land - remediated or not, and rights to build temporary structures on the basis those structures are removed after the event.

That option would have opened up the opportunity of using Wynyard Point and Tankfarm land. Councillors should have been provided Panuku's financial planning and assumptions for its proposal. Councillors should have been advised of the associated revenue streams for its proposals to expand wharves, build more super yacht berthing facilities, construct substantial buildings along the waterfront which will be used for much of their lives by interests who are not America's Cup syndicates. They should also have been informed about costs of relocation of fishing industry, and the implications of that relocation for longer term plans on Wynyard point.

The information presented to Councillors was highly selective. Councillors are now put in the unenviable position of making sequential decisions. This is in danger of becoming an incremental process where councillors lose control. They are not given the big picture.

A good example of that is the nature of the resource consent that is actually being sought by Panuku for its preferred option.

I've read the report that councillors had before them on the 14th December, and considered the presentation provided by Panuku. Then I read the planning report that accompanies Panuku's resource consent application. Deep within that it states that the term of the consent required for the visiting syndicate
bases is 10 years from late 2018. This is apparently to provide for these bases as temporary bases for the
AC36 event in 2021 and to ensure that they are “able to remain for AC37 should ETNZ be victorious in
their defence of the AC36 Cup challenge…”

Nowhere in the report is it explained that a 10 year consent would be sought, based on the dubious assumption that ETNZ will win two America's Cup events in a row. Councillors only voted in relation to the 2021 event. That's what is in their minuted decision. Councillors did not vote for TWO events. But this is what Panuku is applying for.

I think this is outrageous. It explains why the application is for long lasting and durable buildings. If consents are granted like this,
Auckland’s Halsey and Wynyard wharves would be occupied for ten years by huge buildings that
would – at best - be used for America’s Cup purposes for about a year. And at worst they'd only be used for six months for the 2021 event.

The application - which also provides for the relocation of the fishing industry and Sealink ferry - is an integrated one (big picture!), but councillors were selectively informed. They didn't get any detail. They didn't get any planning information about previous publicly debated decisions about how Wynyard Quarter should be developed as a people place and working waterfront, nor how those decisions would be jeopardised by the Panuku option.

Councillors are being drawn into a process over which they have little control. It's time they took control and began asking questions about what is happening behind the scenes.

1 comment:

Only once in the 160 year history of the America's Cup has the trophy been won by a first time Challenger. The exception was in 2003 when the Swiss Alinghi Challenger hired the key crew (ix of them) from Team New Zealand. Effectively the 2003 Cup was New Zealand "A" (Alinghi) vs New Zealand "B" (Emirates Team NZ). Of the entries announced to date only the British team are a second time Challenger (ie a team that competed in the previous America's Cup). Team New Zealand have contested nine America's Cups and 2021 will be their 10th and they won three times.

Comment was made during the Council Meetings considering this issue that the team bases would remain (as they did from 2000-2003).

The principal failure of the Long Term Plan is that it did not take into account the fact that Team NZ had made the Final of two America's Cups since 2003 (2007, 2013), had lost very closely contested Matches, and was likely to win the trophy back in 2017. No contingency planning was done around this probability and that is why there is planning on the fly being done currently.

New Postings: Email Update

About Me

Enjoy the challenges of planning, especially urban planning, and the process of engaging with its endless problems. No easy solutions here! Unlike my earlier life in physics - but then, again, maybe its solutions are like sticking plaster. Previous life for 12 years as elected councillor in Auckland local government. Re-qualified at University of Auckland as urban planner. Now senior policy analyst at NZ Planning Institute.